Forgive me for what I am about to say, but I, like many others, have refused to buy a game point blank on the basis that I have seen a bad review online. On the flip side of this, I have bought things on the basis that I have seen a good review. Reviews are for some of us who don't have the money to go around buying before trying, or have stores local to them where they can try the latest games, the battlefield where we get to see who the big hitters are, and who is worthy of our attention.

Do websites such as IGN, realise how influential and important they are though?

I say this in the light of seeing some reviews that paint pictures of diabolical games, games generally created by independent developers that thrive on online prescence in order to create the hype to sell copies (because lets be honest, most games by independents are hardly going to have the revenue to get the advertising of say EA SPORTS). I've seen games given 3's, 4's, 5's on the basis that they have poor graphics, clunky control systems, or the general one, 'annoying' bugs. While it is important to tell people what they are getting when they buy a game, it needs to be with some perspective. While a game like Deadly Premonition (which in many ways was flawed, and in other ways was actually a very intelligent niche game) gets a 2 out of 10, a game like Resident Evil 5 (I say this being a huge Resident Evil fan), which 1. wasn't a remote improvement on Resident Evil 4, 2. STILL contained a control system that was considered poor even on the Playstation One and 3. Had awful AI and 4. contained a terrible storyline, was rated at 9 out of 10. 9 out of 10, which to me is classed as being close to perfect.

Add to this, games like the latest Skyrim (9.5 out of 10) and Fallout: New Vegas (9 out of 10), games that are often so buggy that you actually get to a point where you physically can't go on, or your gaming experience is seriously impinged upon. Alongside games like Fifa, Gears of War, Halo, games that despite not especially improving, or evolving in a vast way still manage to get 8 out of 10 and plus with every release and you have to wonder, how much of the review goes on the company that's making it or the franchise with which it belongs to.

I've been lucky. Lucky that I have friends who are into the same type of games as me, friends who can afford to buy a game without trying it, and friends who don't have as much faith in the reviewing system as me. This means that I am able to test games out that previously I probably would have turned my nose up at after reading a review. But most people don't have this luxury. The task should be this, not that the reviewer marks games up because they are independent, or because they are a new idea, but more that they approach games that belong to the big franchises and companies with a clear mind because right now, my fear is we are being sold substandard games because the big companies know that for the majority of cases, their franchises will never be attacked by the reviewer. And the goal of the critic, at all times, should be to challenge those they are critiquing in order to achieve the highest level of product possible.